A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A comparison of approaches for prioritizing removal and repair of barriers to stream connectivity
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2703-3841
AbstractDams, road crossings, and water withdrawals extensively fragment rivers, and watersheds often contain hundreds or thousands of barriers, some of which no longer meet societal purposes. Accordingly, both conservationists and infrastructure managers are faced with the challenge of prioritizing barriers for repair, replacement, or removal. Candidate projects have been prioritized with dozens of methods, which span a wide range of spatial scales, data and analytical requirements, mathematical complexity, and capacity to reconcile multiple perspectives and objectives. We briefly review barrier prioritization methods from the perspective of a policy maker or manager who must balance realities of stochastic opportunities, conflicting priorities, and risk of infrastructure failure. After outlining common motivations for barrier prioritization, we present a menu of techniques ranging from large‐scale, quantitative assessments to reactive, local response to failures. By clarifying the appropriate domain for each approach, this review informs the selection of prioritization methods for restoring riverine connectivity.
A comparison of approaches for prioritizing removal and repair of barriers to stream connectivity
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2703-3841
AbstractDams, road crossings, and water withdrawals extensively fragment rivers, and watersheds often contain hundreds or thousands of barriers, some of which no longer meet societal purposes. Accordingly, both conservationists and infrastructure managers are faced with the challenge of prioritizing barriers for repair, replacement, or removal. Candidate projects have been prioritized with dozens of methods, which span a wide range of spatial scales, data and analytical requirements, mathematical complexity, and capacity to reconcile multiple perspectives and objectives. We briefly review barrier prioritization methods from the perspective of a policy maker or manager who must balance realities of stochastic opportunities, conflicting priorities, and risk of infrastructure failure. After outlining common motivations for barrier prioritization, we present a menu of techniques ranging from large‐scale, quantitative assessments to reactive, local response to failures. By clarifying the appropriate domain for each approach, this review informs the selection of prioritization methods for restoring riverine connectivity.
A comparison of approaches for prioritizing removal and repair of barriers to stream connectivity
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2703-3841
AbstractDams, road crossings, and water withdrawals extensively fragment rivers, and watersheds often contain hundreds or thousands of barriers, some of which no longer meet societal purposes. Accordingly, both conservationists and infrastructure managers are faced with the challenge of prioritizing barriers for repair, replacement, or removal. Candidate projects have been prioritized with dozens of methods, which span a wide range of spatial scales, data and analytical requirements, mathematical complexity, and capacity to reconcile multiple perspectives and objectives. We briefly review barrier prioritization methods from the perspective of a policy maker or manager who must balance realities of stochastic opportunities, conflicting priorities, and risk of infrastructure failure. After outlining common motivations for barrier prioritization, we present a menu of techniques ranging from large‐scale, quantitative assessments to reactive, local response to failures. By clarifying the appropriate domain for each approach, this review informs the selection of prioritization methods for restoring riverine connectivity.
A comparison of approaches for prioritizing removal and repair of barriers to stream connectivity
River Research & Apps
McKay, S. Kyle (author) / Martin, Erik H. (author) / McIntyre, Peter B. (author) / Milt, Austin W. (author) / Moody, Allison T. (author) / Neeson, Thomas M. (author)
River Research and Applications ; 36 ; 1754-1761
2020-10-01
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Prioritizing highway defragmentation locations for restoring landscape connectivity
| Online Contents | 2014
A model for prioritizing concrete structures repair works
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2018